George Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics
at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the
Rockridge Institute. He is the author of Moral Politics (U. of
Chicago Press, 1996), a study of how conservatives and liberals see the
world, and "Metaphor and War," perhaps the most widely
distributed critique of the Gulf War, distributed over the Internet during
its early days. He also studies language, metaphorical thought, and the
way the mind is embodied.

September
11, 2001

By George Lakoff

1

The Power of the
Images

As a metaphor analyst, I want
to begin with the power of the images.

There are a number of metaphors for
buildings. We see features — eyes, nose and mouth — in their windows.
The image of the plane going into South Tower of the World Trade Center
is metaphorically an image of a bullet going through someone’s head, the
flame pouring from the other side blood spurting out. Tall buildings are
metaphorically people standing erect. Each tower falling was a body falling.
We are not consciously aware of the metaphorical images, but they are
part of the power and the horror we experience when we see them.

Each of us, in the prefrontal cortex
of our brains, has what are called "mirror neurons." Such neurons
fire either when we perform an action or when see the same action performed
by someone else. There are connections from that part of the brain to
the emotional centers. Such neural circuits are believed to be the basis
of empathy.

This works literally — when we see
plane coming toward the building and imagine people in the building, we
feel the plane coming toward us; when we see the building toppling toward
others, we feel the building toppling toward us. It also works metaphorically:
If we see the plane going through the building, and unconsciously we metaphorize
the building as a head with the plane going through its temple, then we
sense—unconsciously but powerfully—being shot through the temple. If we
metaphorize the building as a person and see the building fall to the
ground in pieces, then we sense—again unconsciously but powerfully— that
we are falling to the ground in pieces. Our systems of metaphorical
thought, interacting with our mirror neuron systems, turn external literal
horrors into felt metaphorical horrors.

Here are some other cases:

Control Is Up: You have control
over the situation, you’re on top of things. This has
always been an important basis of towers as symbols of power. In this
case, the toppling of the towers meant loss of control, loss of power.

Phallic imagery: Towers are symbols
of phallic power and their collapse reinforces the idea of loss of power.

Another kind of phallic imagery
was more central here. The planes as penetrating the towers with a plume
of heat. The pentagon, a vaginal image from the air, penetrated by the
plane as missile.

A Society Is A Building. A society
can have a "foundation" which may or may not be "solid"
and it can "crumble" and "fall." The World Trade
Center was symbolic of society. When it crumbled and fell, the threat
was more than to a building.

We think metaphorically of things
that perpetuate over time as "standing." Bush the Father in
the Gulf War kept saying, "This will not stand," meaning that
the situation would not be perpetuated over time. The World Trade Center
was build to last ten thousand years. When it crumbled, it metaphorically
raised the question of whether American power and American society would
last.

Building As Temple: Here we had
the destruction of the temple of capitalist commerce, which lies at
the heart of our society.

Our minds play tricks on us. The image
of the Manhattan skyline is now unbalanced. We are used to seeing it with
the towers there. Our mind imposes our old image of the towers, and the
sight of them gone gives one the illusion of imbalance, as if Manhattan
we sinking. Given the symbolism of Manhattan as standing for the promise
of America, it appears metaphorically as if that promise were sinking.

Then there is the persistent image,
day after day, of the charred and smoking remains: it is an image of hell.

The World Trade Center was a potent
symbol, tied into our understanding of our country and ourselves in a
myriad of ways. All of what we know is physically embodied in our brains.
To incorporate the new knowledge requires a physical change in the synapses
of our brains, a physical reshaping of our neural system.

The physical violence was not only
in New York and Washington. Physical changes—violent ones—have been made
to the brains of all Americans.

2

How The Administation
Frames the Event

The administration’s framings
and reframings and its search for metaphors should be noted. The initial
framing was as a "crime" with "victims" and "perpetrators"
to be "brought to justice" and "punished." The crime
frame entails law, courts, lawyers, trials, sentencing, appeals, and so
on. It was hours before "crime" changed to "war" with
"casualties," "enemies," "military action,"
"war powers," and so on.

Rumsfeld and other administration
officials have pointed out that this situation does not fit our understanding
of a "war." There are "enemies" and "casualties"
all right, but no enemy army, no regiments, no tanks, no ships, no air
force, no battlefields, no strategic targets, and no clear "victory."
The war frame just doesn’t fit. Colin Powell had always argued that no
troops should be committed without specific objectives, a clear and achievable
definition of victory, a clear exit strategy — and no open-ended commitments.
But he has pointed out that none of these is present in this "war."

Because the concept of "war "doesn’t
fit, there is a frantic search for metaphors. First, Bush called the terrorists
"cowards" — but this didn’t seem to work too well for martyrs
who willing sacrificed their lives for their moral and religious ideals.
More recently he has spoken of "smoking them out of their holes"
as if they were rodents, and Rumsfeld has spoken of "drying up the
swamp they live in" as if they were snakes or lowly swamp creatures.
The conceptual metaphors here are Moral is Up; Immoral is Down (they are
lowly) and Immoral People are Animals (that live close to the ground).

The use of the word "evil"
in the administration’s discourse works in the following way. In conservative,
strict father morality (see my Moral Politics, Chapter 5), evil
is a palpable thing, a force in the world. To stand up to evil you have
to be morally strong. If you’re weak, you let evil triumph, so that weakness
is a form of evil in itself, as is promoting weakness. Evil is inherent,
an essential trait, that determines how you will act in the world. Evil
people do evil things. No further explanation is necessary. There can
be no social causes of evil, no religious rationale for evil, no reasons
or arguments for evil. The enemy of evil is good. If our enemy is evil,
we are inherently good. Good is our essentially nature and what we do
in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a battle,
which is conceptualized metaphorically as a physical fight in which the
stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show
of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is
immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds because
they’ll think they can get away with it. To oppose a show of superior
strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important in the battle
of good against evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way
and get hurt, it is a shame, but it is to be expected and nothing can
be done about it. Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good
is justified — "lesser" evils like curtailing individual
liberties, sanctioning political assassinations, overthrowing governments,
torture, hiring criminals, and "collateral damage."

Then there is the basic security metaphor,
Security As Containment — keeping the evildoers out. Secure our borders,
keep them and their weapons out of our airports, have marshals on the
planes. Most security experts say that there is no sure way to keep terrorists
out or to deny them the use of some weapon or other; a determined well-financed
terrorist organization can penetrate any security system. Or they can
choose other targets, say oil tankers.

Yet the Security As Containment metaphor
is powerful. It is what lies behind the missile shield proposal. Rationality
might say that the September 11th attack showed the missile
shield is pointless. But it strengthened the use of the Security As Containment
metaphor. As soon as you say "national security," the Security
as Containment metaphor will be activated and with it, the missile shield.

3

The Conservative
Advantage

The reaction of the Bush administration
is just what you would expect a conservative reaction would be — pure
Strict Father morality: There is evil loose in the world. We must show
our strength and wipe it out. Retribution and vengeance are called for.
If there are "casualties" or "collateral damage",
so be it.

The reaction from liberals and
progressives has been far different: Justice is called for, not vengeance.
Understanding and restraint are what is needed. The model for our actions
should be the rescue workers and doctors—the healers — not the bombers.

We should not be like them, we should
not take innocent lives in bringing the perpetrators to justice. Massive
bombing of Afghanistan — with the killing of innocents — will show that
we are no better than they.

But it has been the administration’s
conservative message that has dominated the media. The event has been
framed in their terms. As Newt Gingrich put it on the Fox Network, "Retribution
is justice."

We must reframe the discussion.
Susan Bales reminds us of Gandhi’s words: Be the change you want.
The words apply to governments as well as to individuals.

4

Causes

There are (at least) three kinds of
causes radical Islamic terrorism:

Worldview: The Religious Rationale

Social and Political Conditions:
Cultures of Despair

Means: The Enabling Conditions

The Bush administration has discussed
only the third: The means that enable attacks to be carried out. These
include: Leadership (e.g., bin Laden), host countries, training facilities
and bases, financial backing, cell organization, information networks,
and so on. These do not include the first and second on the list.

Worldview: Religious Rationale

The question that keeps being asked
in the media is, Why do they hate us so much?

It is important at the outset to
separate out moderate to liberal Islam from radical Islamic fundamentalists,
who do not represent most muslims.

Radical Islamic fundamentalists
hate our culture. They have a worldview that is incompatible with the
way that Americans — and other westerners — live their lives. One part
of this world view concerns women, who are to hide their bodies, have
no right to property, and so on. Western sexuality, mores, music, and
women’s equality all violate their values, and the ubiquity of American
cultural products, like movies and music, throughout the world offends
them. A second part concerns theocracy: they believe that governments
should be run according to strict Islamic law by clerics. A third concerns
holy sites, like those in Jerusalem, which they believe should be under
Islamic political and military control. A fourth concerns the commercial
and military incursions by Westerners on Islamic soil, which they liken
to the invasion of the hated crusaders. The way they see it, our culture
spits in the face of theirs. A fifth concerns jihad — a holy war
to protect and defend the faith. A sixth is the idea of a martyr, a
man willing to sacrifice himself for the cause. His reward is eternal
glory—an eternity in heaven surrounded by willing young virgins. In
some cases, there is a promise that his family will be taken care of
by the community.

Social and Political Conditions:
Cultures of Despair

Most Islamic would-be martyrs not
only share these beliefs but have also grown up in a culture of despair:
they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you eliminate the
breeding ground for terrorists. When the Bush administration speaks of
eliminating terror, it does not appear to be talking about eliminating
cultures of despair and the social conditions that lead one to want to
give up your life to martyrdom.

Princeton Lyman of the Aspen Institute
has made an important proposal—that the world-wide anti-terrorist coalition
being formed address the causal real-world conditions as well. Country
by country, the conditions (both material and political) leading to despair
need to be addressed, with a worldwide commitment to ending them. It should
be done because it is a necessary part of addressing the causes of terrorism—and
because it is right! The coalition being formed should be made into a
long-term global institution for this purpose.

What about the first cause—the radical
Islamic worldview itself. Military action won’t change it. Social action
won’t change it. Worldviews live in the minds of people. How can one change
those minds — and if not present minds, then future minds? The West
cannot! Those minds can only be changed by moderate and liberal Muslims—clerics,
teachers, elders, respected community members. They need to be recruited
to a worldwide full-time effort, not just against terror, but against
hate. Remember that "taliban" means "student." Those
that teach hate in Islamic schools must be replaced — and we in
the West cannot replace them. This can only be done by an organized moderate,
nonviolent Islam. The West can make the suggestion, but we alone are powerless
to carry it out. We depend on good will and courage of moderate Islamic
leaders. To gain it, we must show our good will by beginning in a serious
way to address the social and political conditions that lead to despair.

But a conservative government, thinking
of the enemy as evil, will not take the primary causes seriously. They
will only go after the enabling causes. But unless the primary causes
are addressed, terrorists will continue to be spawned.

5

Public Discourse

The Hon. Barbara Lee (D, CA),
who I am proud to acknowledge as my representative in Congress, said the
following in casting the lone vote against giving President Bush full
Congressional approval for carrying out his War on Terrorism as he sees
fit:

… I am convinced that military
action will not prevent further acts of

international terrorism against
the United States. This

is a very complex and complicated
matter.

… However difficult this vote
may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. Our country is
in a state of mourning. Some of us must say,

let us step back for a moment.
Let us just pause for a minute and think through the implications
of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.

I have agonized over this vote,
but I came to grips with it today and I came to grips with opposing
this resolution during the very painful yet very beautiful memorial
service. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, ``As we act,

let us not become the evil that
we deplore.''

I agree. But what is striking
to me as a linguist is the use of negatives in the statement: "not
prevent," "restraint" (inherently negative), "not
spiral out of control," "not become the evil that we deplore.''
Friends are circulating a petition calling for "Justice without
vengeance." "Without" has another implicit negative. It
is not that these negative statements are wrong. But what is needed is
a positive form of discourse.

There is one.

The central concept is that of
"responsibility," which is at the heart of progressive/liberal
morality (See Moral Politics). Progressive/liberal morality begins
with empathy, the ability to understand others and feel what they
feel. That is presupposed in responsibility — responsibility for
oneself, for protection, for the care of those who need care, and for
the community. Those were the values that we saw at work among the rescue
workers in New York right after the attack.

Responsibility requires competence
and effectiveness. If you are to deal responsibly with terrorism, you
must deal effectively with all its causes: religious, social, and
enabling causes. The enabling causes must be dealt with effectively. Bombing
innocent civilians and harming them by destroying their country’s domestic
infrastructure will be counterproductive — as well as immoral. Responsibility
requires care in the place of blundering overwhelming force.

Massive bombing would be irresponsible.
Failure to address the religious and social causes would be irresponsible.
The responsible response begins with joint international action to address
all three:the social and political conditions and
the religious worldview and the means with all due care.

6

Foreign Policy

I have been working on a monograph
on foreign policy. The idea behind it is this: There are many advocacy
groups that have long been doing important good works in the international
arena, but on issues that have not officially been seen as being a proper
part of foreign policy: the environment, human rights, women’s rights,
the condition of children, labor, international public health issues (e.g.,
AIDS in Africa), sustainable development, refugees, international education,
and so on. The monograph comes in two parts.

First, the book points out that the
metaphors that foreign policy experts have used to define what foreign
policy is rules out these important concerns. Those metaphors involve
self-interest (e.g., the Rational Actor Model), stability (a physics metaphor),
industrialization (unindustrialized nations are "underdeveloped’)
, and trade (freedom is free trade).

Second, the book proposes an alterative
way of thinking about foreign policy under which all these issues would
become a natural part of what foreign policy is about. The premise is
that, when international relations work smoothly, it is because certain
moral norms of the international community are being followed. This mostly
goes unnoticed, since those norms are usually followed. We notice problems
when those norms are breached. Given this, it makes sense that foreign
policy should be centered around those norms.

The moral norms I suggest come out
of what I called in Moral Politics "nurturant morality."
It is a view of ethical behavior that centers on (a) empathy and (b) responsibility
(for both yourself and others needing your help). Many things follow from
these central principles: fairness, minimal violence (e.g., justice without
vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of those needing it, a recognition
of interdependence, cooperation for the common good, the building of community,
mutual respect, and so on. When applied to foreign policy, nurturant moral
norms would lead the American government to uphold the ABM treaty, sign
the Kyoto accords, engage in a form of globalization governed by an ethics
of care—and it would automatically make all the concerns listed above
(e.g., the environment, women’s rights) part of our foreign policy.

This, of course, implies (a) multilateralism,
(b) interdependence, and (c) international cooperation. But these three
principles, without nurturant norms, can equally well apply to the Bush
administration’s continuance of its foreign policy. Bush’s foreign policy,
as he announced in the election campaign, has been one of self-interest
("what’s in the best interest of the United States") — if not
outright hegemony (the Cheney/Rumsfeld position). The Democratic leaders
incorrectly criticized Bush for being isolationist and unilateralist,
on issues like the Kyoto accords and the ABM Treaty. He was neither isolationist
nor unilateralist. He was just following his stated policy of self-interest.

The mistaken criticism of Bush as
a unilateralist and as uncooperative will now blow up in his critics’
faces. When it is in America’s interest (as he sees it), he will work
with other nations. The "War against Terrorism" is perfect for
changing his image to that of a multilateralist and internationalist.
It is indeed in the common interest of most national governments not to
have terrorists operating. Bush can come out on the side of the angels
while pursuing his same policy of self-interest.

The mistake of Bush’s critics has
been to use "multilateralism" versus "unilateralism"
as a way categorizing foreign policy. Self-interest crosses those categories.

There is, interestingly, an apparent
overlap between the nurturant norms policy and an idealistic vision of
the Bush administration’s new war. The overlap is, simply, that it is
a moral norm to refuse to engage in, or support, terrorism. From this
perspective, it looks like Left and Right are united. It is an illusion.

In nurturant norms policy, anti-terrorism
arises from another moral norm: Violence against innocent parties is
immoral. But Bush’s new war will certainly not follow that moral
norm. Bush’s military advisers appear to be planning massive bombings
and infrastructure destruction that will certainly take the lives of a
great many innocent civilians.

Within a year of the end of the Gulf
War, the CIA reported that about a million Iraqi civilians had died from
the effects of the war and the embargo — many from disease and malnutrition
due to the US destruction of water treatment plants, hospitals, electric
generation plants, and so on, together with the inability to get food
and medical supplies. Many more innocents have died since from the effects
of the war. Do we really think that the US will have the protection of
innocent Afghanis in mind if it rains terror down on the Afghan infrastructure?
We are supposedly fighting thembecause they immorally killed
innocent civilians. That made them evil. If we do the same, are
we any less immoral?

This argument would hold water if
the Bush War on Terrorism were really about morality in the way that morality
is understood by progressives/liberals. It is not. In conservative morality,
there is fight between Good and Evil, in which "lesser" evils
are tolerated and even seen as necessary and expected.

The argument that killing innocent
civilians in retaliation would make us as bad as them works for liberals,
not for conservatives.

The idealistic claim of the Bush administration
is they intend to wipe out "all terrorism." What is not mentioned
is that the US has systematically promoted a terrorism of its own and
has been trained terrorists, from the contras to the mujahadeen to the
Honduran death squads to the Indonesian military. Indeed, there are reports
that two of the terrorists taking part in The Attack were trained by the
US. Will the US government stop training terrorists? Of course not. It
will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity? Not in terms of conservative
morality and its view of Good versus Evil and lesser evils.

If the administration’s discourse
offends us, we have a moral obligation to change public discourse!

Be the change you want! If
the US wants terror to end, the US must end its own contribution to terror.
And we must also end terror sponsored not against the West but against
others. We have made a deal with Pakistan to help in Afghanistan. Is it
part of the deal that Pakistan renounce its own terrorism in Kashmir against
India? I would be shocked if it were. The Bush foreign policy of self-interest
does not require it.

The question must be asked. If that
is not part of the deal, then our government has violated its own stated
ideals; it is hypocritical. If the terrorism we don’t mind — or might
even like — is perpetuated, terrorism will not end and will eventually
turn back on us, just as our support for the mujahadeen did.

We must be the change we want!

The foreign policy of moral norms
is the only sane foreign policy. In the idea of responsibility for oneself,
it remains practical. But through empathy and other forms of responsibility
(protection, care, competence, effectiveness, community development),
it would lead to international cooperation and a recognition of interdependence.

7

Domestic Policy

I have a rational fear,
a fear that the September 11 attack has given the Bush administration
a free hand in pursuing a conservative domestic agenda. This has so far
been unsayable in the media. But it must be said, lest it happen for sure.

Where is the $40 billion coming from?
Not from a rise in taxes. The sacrifices will not be made by the rich.
Where then? The only available source I can think of is the Social Security
"lockbox," which is now wide open. The conservatives have been
trying to raid the Social Security fund for some time, and the Democrats
had fought them off until now. A week ago, the suggestion to take $40
billion from the Social Security "surplus" would have been indefensible.
Has it now been done — with every Democratic senator voting for it and
all but one of the Democrats in Congress?

Think of it: Are your retirement contributions
— and mine — are going to fight Bush’s "war." No one dares to
talk about it that way. It’s just $40 billion, as if it came out of nowhere.
No one says that $40 billion dollars comes from your retirement contributions.
No one talks about increasing taxes. We should at least ask just where
the money is coming form.

If the money is coming from social
security, then Bush has achieved a major goal of his partisan conservative
agenda — without fanfare, without notice, and with the support of virtually
all Democrats.

Calling for war, instead of mere
justice, has given the conservatives free rein. I fear it will only be
a matter of time before they claim that we need to drill for oil in the
Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for national security reasons. If that most "pristine"
place falls, they will use the national security excuse to drill and mine
coal all over the country. The energy program will be pushed through as
a matter of "national security." All social programs will be
dismissed for lack of funds, which will be diverted to "national
security."

Cheney has said that this war
may never be completed. Newt Gingrich estimates at least four or five
years, certainly past the 2004 election. With no definition of victory
and no exit strategy, we may be entering a state of perpetual war.
This would be very convenient for the conservative domestic agenda: The
war machine will determine the domestic agenda, which will allow conservatives
to do whatever they want in the name of national security.

The recession we are entering
has already been blamed on The Attack, not on Bush’s economic policies.
Expect a major retrenchment on civil liberties. Expect any WTO protesters
to be called terrorists and/or traitors. Expect any serious opposition
to Bush’s policies to be called traitorous.